Saturday, May 21, 2016

We must recall that Pope Benedict affirmed the pro-Masonic position when he said that Jews do not need to convert in the present times. This was with reference to the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews.

Then he supported the pro Masonic position when he affirmed that the baptism of desire etc was a known exception to the Feeneyite position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

Now the Vatican has issued a statement on the Third Secret of Fatima saying that Pope Benedict did not tell any one that the secret was incomplete.

Recently he announced that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more the same like in the 16th century.Since it has been developed with Vatican Council II for him.In other words there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II.

When Wikipedia would continue to say that LG 16 was an exception to the dogma EENS there was no clarification from the office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when he was the Prefect.

Amoris Laetitia is a break with the moral encylical Veritatis Splendor , which he approved.There is no comment here from Pope Benedict.

Steve Skojec in a podcast asks what is wrong with the SSPX position doctrinally.

So I mentioned that the SSPX:-

1) has developed the teaching on Vatican Council II,2) developed the Nicene Creed and 3) developed the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus.

In contrast what do I believe as a Catholic ?

Other Religions:

According to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441) all non Christians are on the way to Hell without 'faith and baptism' in the Catholic Church. In general they are on the way to Hell and we cannot know of any exception.

Ecumenism/Christian religions

According to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441) all non Catholics are on the way to Hell without Catholic Faith, which includes the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church, necessary for salvation.In general they are on the way to Hell and here too we cannot know of any exception.

Religious Liberty

Since there is no salvation outside the Church the priority is the non separation of Church and State.

Since there is no salvation outside the Church Christ the King, as known in the Catholic Church, must be the center of all political and social legislation.

Liturgy

Since there is no known salvation outside the Church, the ecclesiology of the Holy Mass, in every Rite, is always ecclesiocentric. There is no separation between Jesus and the necessity of the Church for salvation.The ecclesiology of the Tridentine Latin Mass before and after the Council of Trent is the same.

Nicene Creed.

Since there is no known salvation outside the Church the Nicene Creed still means "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" and not "I believe in three or more known baptisms".

Vatican Council II

Since there is no known salvation outside the Church, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They refer to hypothetical cases and so they cannot be explicit exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church, to avoid Hell.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

There are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries. No body in the past could have physically seen or known an exception. No one in the present times knows of an exception to the dogma which says all need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.The baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical cases.So they cannot be an exception in 2016 to all needing to enter the Catholic Church,to be saved.

So this is what I believe as a Catholic and I have proclaimed it here.

Church Militant TV in its Download program yesterday(Friday) advised the bishops to proclaim the faith.Why don't they proclaim the Catholic Faith like I have done here? Say it clearly- that every one needs to be a 'card carrying' member of the church to avoid Hell.

Steve Skojec asks the cardinals and bishops to proclaim the Faith and says the SSPX is not wrong doctrinally.Then he could tell me where I am wrong in what I have stated above.If he cannot correct me then why does he also not proclaim the same Faith as I have done above.

Louie Verrecchio still interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism( there are known exceptions to EENS) instead of Feeneyism( there are no known exceptions to EENS).This is how Pope Francis too interprets Vatican Council II.He is a Cushingite.

Are the Documents of the Second Vatican Council Infallible? At this time a question could certainly occur to the reader: Did the Second Vatican Council use the privilege of infallibility? The answer is a simple and positive no.

Lionel: However by using a new theology, based on an irrationality,by miixing up what is invisible for being visible, as in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, it has changed doctrine on salvation.There is a new doctrine on salvation and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which was defined by three Church Councils has been rejected.

The rejection is confirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which refers to outside the Church there is no salvation (846) as an 'aphorism'.It also assumes there are known exceptions in the baptism of desire and blood without the baptism of water, even though no human being in history could have verified this.This is something which can only be known to God.

_____________________________

The Conciliar Fathers never had the will to define, that is to say, on no occasion did they fulfill the third condition for infallibility listed above.

Lionel:Agreed. However when they accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in principle, that is, hypothetical cases can be known, concrete exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENs, then they accepted the irrational new theology, which was a mean to reject the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

________________________________

Already in the preparatory phase of that sacred Assembly, Pope John XXIII declared that it would not define new dogmas but would have only a pastoral character.

Lionel: However pastorally Pope John XXIII accepted that there were exceptions to EENS and the traditional de fide teaching was rejected in 1962.This was the understanding of the cardinals and bishops too at Vatican Council II. Cardinal Cushing and the Holy Office in 1962-65 had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

________________________________

However, such statements by John XXIII do not appear sufficient to authorize the affirmation that the Council did not use its power to define.

Lionel: It did not formally define a new dogma but with a new theology it rejected the centuries old teaching.

_________________________________

Indeed, the Pope’s sovereignty in the Church of God is absolute. He is above all ecclesiastical law. His power has no limits, except for those of divine law and natural law.

Lionel: Since Pius XII the popes have made a mistake on an issue of faith. They have overlooked a new theology based on an irrational premise which creates a non traditional and heretical conclusion.

They have rejected an infallible teaching approved by three Church Councils by using this new theology.

__________________________________

While every papal act opposed to these laws would be null, no Council and no previous law, whether it be of his own authorship or by his Predecessors, can oblige the reigning Pope. Therefore, John XXIII having convened a pastoral Council, nothing prevented him or his Successor later to decide to transform it into a dogmatic Council.

Lionel:Yes.However the dogma on exclusive salvation was discarded.The magisterium refused to interpret Vatican Council II, like me, as supporting the dogma EENS according to Tradition.

__________________________________

And on the other hand, in principle nothing prevents a pastoral Council from defining a dogma, as no Catholic would dare maintain that a dogma is something anti-pastoral!

Lionel:

Pastorally the dogma EENS has been rejected since doctrinally it has been changed with the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology.With the new theology, there is known salvation outside the Church. So it means according to Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc) there could be the Anonymous Christian of Fr.Karl Rahner S.j, who is saved by Jesus and the Church outside the Church.

Pastorally this is a new ecclesiology.

___________________________________

That Vatican II did not wish to define any dogma is proven by its records and the text of its documents; in none of these can be found unequivocally the exteriorization of the will to define.

Lionel:Lumen Gentium 14 re-defines the dogma EENS. It does not say explicitly and clearly say that every one needs to formally enter the Church for salvation.Instead it refers to salvation for only those who know, those who are not in invincible ignorance.

This is a new doctrine, the dogma EENS has been redefined by the magisterium and accepted by the whole Church.

Steve Skojec talks about the many Catholics who do not know the Faith and....but neither does he know the Faith at least not enough to respond to the last blog post.1

He does depend upon traditional Catholic sources and this is good. However we are at a point in history when not only the magisterium but also the SSPX has made a doctrinal error. The SSPX is so doctrinally sure of itself that perhaps they would not even be willing to consider that they made an error. Any way neither can Steve Skojec or any priest of the SSPX comment when I wrote that the SSPX has developed Vatican Council II, the Nicene Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

Just like the liberals, progresivists and Masons they have developed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed. This is first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.

Why cannot Steve contradict me?

What if he said, "Lionel you are wrong since the SSPX accepts the Nicene Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus"? I would respond,"They Only say that they accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed"

They really mean that the dogma EENS has known exceptions with the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.

They also believe that the Nicene Creed has known exceptions to "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. For Steve and the faculty at the Steubenville University, where he studied theology, it is "I believe in three or more known baptisms. They are the baptism of desire and blood, seeds of the Word...all without the baptism of water."

So this is a variation on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed.

Then we come to Vatican.Here the heresy is clear and obvious.

Since for me there are no known exceptons to the dogma EENS, there are no known cases of the baptism of desire or blood without the baptism of water.There is no hypothetical case in Vatican Council II (LG 8, UR 3, NA 2,LG 16 etc) which can be an exception to the Feneyite interpretation of EENS. EENS is traditional for me. It has an ecclesiology which is traditional. Religious, liberty, ecumenism and liturgical change ( with the new ecclesiology) is no more an issue.Since Vatican Council II now affirms Feneeyism ( for me), there are no exceptions to the traditional teachings on other religions and Christian communities. So there is no separation between Church and State and we affirm the Social Kingship of Christ the King since there is no salvation outside the Church and every one needs to be a Catholic to avoid Hell.

But this is not the case with Steve Skojec.For him there are exceptions to the tradtional teaching on EENS and the Nicene Creed.So his interpretatiom of Vatican Council II, like the SSPX, sedevacantists and liberals is different from mine.

It is the difference between light and darkness. These are two distinct interpretations of Vatican Council II. It is the difference between Pope Benedict's heremeneutic of continuity and rupture.

So why does Steve not see this ?

Why does he not write about it since he knows the Faith unlike many Catholics whom he refers to in the podcast?

Why does he not criticize and correct me?

Why does he not agree with me?

Too bad. The answer is not there in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott or the statements of the popes on salvation.It cannot be reasoned out with Denzinger. The magisterium is politically oriented and so will be of no help for him.

So what is Steve to do?

I don't know. I have written so much on this subject and he still does not understand.

I have written so much on this point and Chris Ferrara and John Vennari cannot agree or criticize me as good Catholics.So they will be of no help for him.

The sedevantist Dimond Brothers have no answer. Since there is no answer in the traditional writings to explain or criticize what I have written.Yet they know that what I am saying is rational and my premises are traditional.

And they know that I am saying that their premises are irrational and conclusions are non traditional.

Does it mean that they wll have to reinterpret Vatican Council II ? Yes! And are they willling to do this ? No !

-Lionel Andrades1

SSPX is in doctrinal error like the contemporary magisterium Steve Skojec

It was Robert Kennedy who asked Cardinal Cushing to suppress Fr.Leonard Feeney according to the memoirs of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy who was present when his father Joseph Kennedy called up his friend,the Archbishop of Boston.

Yes, it looks like all four played historic roles in the shaping of Christian theology. Reading Teddy Kennedy’s memoir, True Compass, just published today and already No. 2 on Amazon, I discovered a remarkable anecdote about how Bobby Kennedy may have been a crucial figure in the suppression of the controversial Boston Jesuit, Fr. Leonard Feeney. In Senator Ted’s account, Bobby, while a student at Harvard, was outraged at hearing Feeney declare that no non-Catholic can be saved:

[Bobby] discussed it with our father one weekend at the Cape house. I well remember the conversation.

Dad could not believe that Bobby had heard Father Feeney correctly. “But,” he said, “if you feel strongly that you did, I’m going to go into the other room and call Richard. Maybe he’ll want you to go up to Boston and see him.”

“Richard” was Richard Cardinal Cushing. Dad and the cardinal enjoyed a long and profound friendship. . . .

Bobby said he felt strongly indeed. Bang! Dad called up “Richard” and arranged for Bobby to visit him. The cardinal, as nonplussed as Dad, sent some of his people over to hear Father Feeney’s Thursday evening lecture. When he found that my brother was right, Cushing banned Feeney from speaking there; Feeney refused to obey the order, and in September 1949 the archdiocese formally condemned the priest’s teaching. . . . In February 1952, Father Feeney was excommunicated. 1

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus was eliminated.The new salvation doctrine was placed in Vatican Council II. The Council reflets the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.The Letter(1949) discarded the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma.To do this it had to assume invisible cases ( baptism of desire etc) were physically visible.Hypothetical theories were supposed to be 'practically known'.With this irrationality they wrongly reasoned that there were physically known exceptions to centuries old understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,which was defined by three Councils.They brought into the Catholic Church a new premise ( there are physically known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church) and a new conclusion ( so outside the Church there is known salvation, all do not need to formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell).Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits placed this new concept of salvation in the text of Vatican Council II. The new concept was that hypothetical cases of 'seeds of the Word' (AG 11), 'elements of sanctification and truth'( LG 8), 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR 3), 'a ray of that Truth' (NA 2) etc were 'practical exceptions' to the Feeneyite interpretation on exclusive salvation in the Church.So they concluded in Lumen Gentium 14 that not every one needs to enter the Church for salvation but only those who know, those who were not in invincible ignorance. This was the conclusion, the inference, of the Letter's false premise. Those who were in invincible ignorance, it was speculated, thorugh no fault of thier own could be saved, and these cases were for them, objectively known.This is the rub. They were suppposed to be physically seen to be relevant to the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology.The irony is that inspite of all this confusion in Vatican Council II, the Council can still be interpreted in harmony with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.To do this, we only have to be aware of hypothetical cases and know that they are not exceptions to the dogma opposed by the Kennedys.Since we know there cannot be any known exception to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for us humans, there cannot be anything in Vatican Council II which contradicts Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.The magisterium made a mistake.There cannot be ' a development' with Vatican Council II since there cannot be any objective exception to the dogma.So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.Outside the Church there is no salvation since there is no known salvation. There are no known exceptions. There canot be exceptions in Vatican Council II.So when Pope Benedict recently said in the interview with Avvenire, that there was a development with extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and it was no more like in the 16th century, he was supporting the error of the Holy Office and Cardinal Cushing, after the Kennedy intervention.Pope Benedict assumed Robert Kennedy, Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Holy Office 1949 were objectively correct and that Fr.Leonard Feeney overlooked the baptism of desire, which for Pope Benedict, is objective and seen in the flesh.-Lionel Andrades

1.

ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

Bobby Kennedy’s intervention : ' Reinforced by Cardinal Cushing’s discussions with the papal hierarchy in Rome, it became an animating impulse of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, which opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962'